Justice Watch "Myth" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Myth, Diwi, 23:54:01, 8/11/2001 I think so too...., Phantom, 00:05:16, 8/12/2001, (#1) But, MrsBrady, 06:15:45, 8/12/2001, (#2) I think..., Phantom, 12:24:34, 8/12/2001, (#3) I agree with Ma, watchin', 12:28:03, 8/12/2001, (#4) I hope..., Phantom, 12:31:46, 8/12/2001, (#5) Phantom, JR, 13:28:23, 8/12/2001, (#6) Hi JR.., Phantom, 13:32:50, 8/12/2001, (#7) Phantom, JR, 14:01:06, 8/12/2001, (#8) JR, Phantom, 14:30:22, 8/12/2001, (#9) a myth within a myth, Edie Pratt, 16:29:52, 8/12/2001, (#10) Great post, Diwi, Gemini, 18:20:19, 8/12/2001, (#11) My opinion, JR, 19:51:17, 8/12/2001, (#12) JR, Phantom, 21:36:28, 8/12/2001, (#13) Phantom, JR, 21:41:05, 8/12/2001, (#14) sexual prancing, fly, 10:11:43, 8/13/2001, (#15) myth vs. fact, Greenleaf, 11:21:29, 8/13/2001, (#16) Now JR...., Phantom, 11:45:06, 8/13/2001, (#17) Answers to your questions, JR, 13:49:52, 8/13/2001, (#18) JR, fly, 14:11:27, 8/13/2001, (#19) No actually..., Phantom, 15:37:59, 8/13/2001, (#20) Phantom, JR, 17:45:17, 8/13/2001, (#21) Now I..., Phantom, 18:09:40, 8/13/2001, (#23) We Get Your Point, Chatter, 18:05:20, 8/13/2001, (#22) Greenleaf, A.K., 23:38:14, 8/13/2001, (#24) Response, Diwi, 07:20:17, 8/14/2001, (#26) :-), Geno, 20:03:38, 8/15/2001, (#39) Greenleaf,, pinker, 07:20:11, 8/14/2001, (#25) Diwi, JR, 09:55:15, 8/14/2001, (#27) JR, Diwi, 11:00:33, 8/14/2001, (#28) Diwi, JR, 11:58:55, 8/14/2001, (#29) Diwi, JR, Ayeka, 12:47:28, 8/14/2001, (#30) JR, Diwi, 13:50:18, 8/14/2001, (#31) Diwi, JR, 13:56:22, 8/14/2001, (#32) Diwi, Gemini, 13:59:29, 8/15/2001, (#33) orrrrrrrr,, Edie Pratt, 17:46:02, 8/15/2001, (#34) Eddie, JR, 17:54:24, 8/15/2001, (#35) uh, yeah, Edie Pratt, 18:01:10, 8/15/2001, (#36) Edie, Gemini, 18:23:26, 8/15/2001, (#37) Gem, JR, 18:51:04, 8/15/2001, (#38) Geno, DebDeb, 11:18:02, 8/16/2001, (#40) yes, Debdeb, Gemini, 18:34:11, 8/16/2001, (#41) ................................................................... "Myth" Posted by Diwi on 23:54:01 8/11/2001 (Note: I posted this in Jameson's forum awhile back, and JW member Gemini suggested recently that I post it in here for any/all comments/discussion, so if anyone's interested, here's an article which touches on one aspect of the case which I often think has been exaggerated in people's analysis & theories/thinking of the real truths of the crime.) "Myth" IMHO: I think there is a "myth" in the JBR case which has led most astray from the reality of it. It is a myth that was planted in the heads of all of us from the earliest days of this case, and it has grown into one so powerful and persuasive to most, feeding various personal and "authoritative" sociopolitical and psychological agendas, that at this point, it has taken on a false reality of its own. Yet, from reading most comments on this case, from pro-Ramsey and anti-Ramsey alike (and even most of the fence-sitters), I do not think most people are even aware of this myth and its mostly subconscious effects on their own beliefs, ideas or theories about the case. I also feel that this may be the largest reason why the case has never been solved, nor anyone brought to trial or justice for the crime. Within a case chock-full of myths, odd characters, money-grubbers, innocents, strange factors, evidence pointing in many directions at once, and mysteries and truths yet to be revealed, there is the matter of "sex." I believe it is almost entirely a created myth in this case. In writing this, I am not so much absorbed in expounding upon my own opinions on this, but in getting some serious, rational, unemotional responses from a lot of you. I only became interested in the case enough to start closely examining the known evidence and facts and separating the wheat from the chaff, about a year and a half ago. I know many or most of you have been "studying" it in much more detail for a lot longer than that, some from the very first days. Therefore, I'm just going to try to state my little "thesis" here and ask others for their comments. I welcome serious challenges or criticism based upon facts and evidence, but not on one's own personal beliefs or agenda. Below are only my own beliefs. And as neither pro or anti-Ramsey, I really do not have an agenda except to try to ascertain for myself (whether anyone else comes along for the ride), what the truths of this case are, and how I think it best to bring the perpetrator to justice someday. The conscience of the king and all of that. In this case, the conscience of the murderer(s). I believe this crime had little to do with "sex" of any kind. I think that it was a sadistic, brutal murder by a psychotic who was never interested in Jon Benet as any kind of "sexual object." So far for me, in reading most other's ideas and thoughts about the case, this factor has been completely overplayed as being important and/or as being vital in pointing to what really happened that night in the Ramsey's home, and why. There are three main reasons I say this. 1) How the media (tabloid and mainstream) painted the crime from day one. 2) Personal belief inclinations of people in general and the "authorities" in particular. 3) The actual known evidence and facts of the nature of the crime, and what it indicates. MEDIA: I clearly remember hearing the first news reports of this case. The so-called "mainstream" media (which many take falsely in my opinion, as being an "authority" in itself), kept showing the Jon Benet pageant video over and over. To most unfamiliar with such child pageants, seeing Jon Benet in that way, touched off a personal, sensationalist aspect of people's general psychology, bringing up all sorts of misleading ideas. I believe this was intentional by the media but the results in most people's minds since has been consciously undigested. It has warped most people's views on the crime itself. Almost all little girls play "dress-up" and "movie-star," put on make-up, try on "mommy's clothes," dance, sing, and so forth. When translated into public contests and pageants, the general innocence of such things is unchanged. I personally never saw anything "wrong" or "sexual" at all about that one video they kept playing over and over. Most parents, promoters, spectators of, and children in such things, also hold this view. I didn't see any of this as "sexual" at the beginning, and still do not. However, the mainstream media surely presented it as such, and within a short time, the tabloids followed suit, sensationalizing it beyond its reality. Besides the video, virtually every still photo shown of Jon Benet was in make up. The tabloids went so far as to show such with pictures of John Ramsey with lurid huge headlines like "Daddy raped and killed me," or similar such outrageous stuff noting Patsy's earlier pageant participation. All trying to make a "connection" somehow, not because it really fit in with the facts/evidence, but because it meant "profit." Pretty soon, in the minds of many (most?), the whole nature of the crime was seen as a "sexual" one, and what I feel the realities of it (the sadism, brutality, violence, extortion), took a back seat. I believe "sex" had almost nothing to do with this, and at most, was only a passing side-thought in the mind of the murderer(s). So then, besides the media, how did the biggest "myth" of this case in my view, grow as it did and continue to do so till present day? BELIEFS: I think most people are quite dense when it comes to reading between the lines of what is actual "news" and what is "spin" in the media of this country. The most blatant examples are tabloids and shows like Geraldo, Hard Copy, et al. Less noticeable to most who have an interest in this case, but still almost as much disinformation to me, are the "respected" programs like Larry King, Dateline, 20/20, and even 60 Minutes. Often, I have seen such shows throw out a whole lot of blatant nonsense on this case, with narratives from biased yellow-journalists which many times assume as facts and truths in the case, things which are not. Finally, even the seemingly "hard news" shows, local and national, have done the same things. In all of these examples, one thing has been pretty much consistent to me, and that is that the "sexual" angle is highlighted within the context of the case as a whole. This is simply the nature of the "media" to me, which is profit first, truth a distant second, but I think it has warped most people's views on the case, even if they are not themselves aware of how such mythical manipulation occurred or is ongoing. In any such story, whether it be OJ, Mcveigh, Lewinsky or Levy, individuals often become interested not because of the actual importance of the events to our society as a whole, but to themselves personally. In the Jon Benet case, those who disliked the wealthy found easy targets for hating the Ramseys. Those who favored aggressive police and district attorney tactics as opposed to presumption of innocence and right to defense, found a hero in Steve Thomas and villains in Alex Hunter and the Ramsey's attorneys. Folks who believed (naively in my view) in the general good will/intention of media organizations and individuals, and authoritarian organizations like the BPD and FBI, had more reason to doubt the Ramseys, since neither has of yet allowed themselves to be strapped into a chair, pumped with Sodium Pentothal under a hot light and have the "real truth" tortured out of them. And besides that, there's still that nagging old other mythical notion floating around, which is that elusive "umbrella of suspicion." The media and the authorities have said so, therefore it must be true. Parents who never participated or had their kids do so in the beauty pageants, brought all of their own religious/cultural perspectives into it if necessary, condemning these overwhelmingly harmless events, and specifically picking out John and Patsy for subjecting Jon Benet to this seeming "abuse" in their eyes. "Survivors" of incest or child molestation, brought into the mix clear emotional and psychological agendas, which still have little to do with the actual facts/evidence in my opinion. And finally, out came all the closet "cybersleuths" who found a "cause" of sorts in the plight of this one child, not so much to me because of the actual case, but because of the myth the case has eventually become which touched upon their own personal life history and experiences, their egos and perspectives, and their need to engage in group think. Throughout it all, the question needs to be asked, if Jon Benet Ramsey had never participated in child beauty pageants, would there be any "sexual angle" or pervading myth of this sort in this horrible killing at all? I say, very likely not, because of the... FACTS & EVIDENCE There simply doesn't exist in my opinion, a whole helluva lot of evidence that what was done to Jon Benet that night had much to do with "sex." Someone interested in that would've left a lot more signs of such. If that was a primary motive, the child would've not been attacked in the middle of Christmas night in her own home. There would be much more forensic evidence clearly pointing to sexual abuse that night and previously. There would be no need for crushing her skull, for making fancy garrotes, using duct tape, "staging," or that silly ransom note, all of which has nothing to do with "sex." Jon Benet could've easily been abducted by such a sadistic psychopath at almost any time, even that night. Yet was she ever "stalked" in any way in school, at the pageants, or near her home? Has anyone come forth to note from personal recollection any abnormal attentions paid to this girl by anyone close to or in the family? Most of the evidence of what happened that night clearly points to brutality and sadism, not "sex." At most, it seems an afterthought of the sick killer. "Expert" opinions vary on whether Jon Benet had been sexually abused previously, but even if so, by who? The most likely suspect to some of course, is "the father." And here is where, for myself, the "myth" which has been created in this case, has warped people's minds the most. There is absolutely not the slightest shred of evidence John Ramsey ever molested/abused anyone, let alone his daughter. Not that night, not ever. To posit such, one must go into the deepest bowels of some totally speculative (and to me intellectually and morally/ethically obscene) fantasyland, which is the resulting powerful indications of how the sexual myth was "sold" so effectively. With Patsy as the killer, with no involvement of John at all, where does that leave the myth to most anti-Ramseys? Right back to square one. Presumption of guilt because of personal perspectives and opinions/beliefs on a wide range of issues which have much more to do with the observers and "sleuths" than what was actually observed at the crime scene. There seems 101 variations on the John and/or Patsy did it theme, but one thing they all have in common to me, is some sort of reliance on the myth which the media/authorities force-fed the gullible public from the start, that this crime was of a sexual nature. Given the unique circumstances, it's easy to understand why this has taken such a persuasive hold on most, but to me, it's clear that the sexual aspects have been totally blown out of proportion given the actual crime. The crime was not, is not, one of sex, just as the pageants were/are not. This was a brutal, sadistic act of violence against a child, period. It was an extreme of vicious abuse, not the handiwork of a "pedophile," or a "child molester," habitual or not, and conclusively to myself, not the end results of anyone interested in "sex" that night with Jon Benet. And, so? Myths die hard. Many serve useful purposes for a lot of people, but in this modern age of doublespeak and disinformation, in a highly-publicized and sensationalized murder such as this, the "sexual" one saturating this particular case from the beginning, has led to no really workable theories, let alone solutions. Why is that? In my view, it is because the whole focus by the media, the authorities, the general public, and the specific residents of all of these Jon Benet forums, whether pro or anti-Ramsey, has been misguided from the beginning. The killer(s) of Jon Benet, whether male or female, whether Ramsey, close friend, acquaintance, or stranger, did not have "sexual" pleasure of any sort (regardless of how aberrant one can imagine) as motivation that night. In my opinion, this crime had as much to do with "sex" as does rape. Rape is a crime of hate, violence, and primitive brutality, not sex. The murder of Jon Benet and the artifacts and evidence surrounding it, indicates the same type of mentality at work. If we are nowhere near a solution to this mystery after all of these years, perhaps its time to step back in time and ask some hard questions as to why. I think a good start would be to start recognizing and dispelling the myths of this case, including the most persuasive of all, which was created in a lot of people's minds at first seeing Jon Benet on stage, not Jon Benet in reality. Those who started this myth did so for a reason. They are the ones whose reality truly is a stage, and always has been. This crime had almost nothing to do with "sex." I believe that looking at it from that angle only takes us further and further away from its real nature. More crime scene photos please, completely uncensored. There you will find the truth, no matter how hard that is to really look at for some. "Any myth worth its salt exerts a powerful magnetism. Notice the images and stories that you are drawn to and repelled by. Investigate the field of associated images and stories..." Joseph Campbell [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Diwi ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "I think so too...." Posted by Phantom on 00:05:16 8/12/2001 I think the only "real" evidence that the crime was "sexual" is from one of the coroners saying that JonBenet was a sexual victim , and believeing that she was a victim one more than one occasion. Others didn't think she was a sexual victim. I don't know what to think or make out of either train of thought. But I really see it the way you do. I think the crime was by a planned sadistic murder. I think it 99%. The last 1% is not knowing what to make of the "sexual" condition, or crime of or on the body. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "But" Posted by MrsBrady on 06:15:45 8/12/2001 I still believe that Patsy and John are guilty of painting a great big red bulls-eye on "that child's" ass - sex or no sex. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "I think..." Posted by Phantom on 12:24:34 8/12/2001 they didn't mean to paint a bulls-eye. I think it was only a bulls-eye because someone already knew the Ramseys in some way and THEN went to murder JonBenet. I think it's some kind of abberation with the murderer. And some kind of associated hatred and jealousy of the Ramseys. Or someone that knew someone that knew of the Ramseys even. And when JonBenet won the pagents and it was made public, that's when the abberations came out and he targeted her. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "I agree with Ma" Posted by watchin' on 12:29:58 8/12/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:29:58, 8/12/2001 AND with the coroner's report. One can argue that JonBenet's sexualization was only a part of theatrics. If I give that a pass I am still stuck with the FACT that a picture of a naked made-up child wearing only a "boa" was hanging in the ramsey bedroom (perhaps hallway?) Where ever it was hanging, that photo was NOT part of the pageant promotions but did in fact satisify the appetites of two very perverse people. Sexualization was an element of her life and death to what degree we will never know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "I hope..." Posted by Phantom on 12:31:46 8/12/2001 naked baby pictures and blankeys aren't pornographic.? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Phantom" Posted by JR on 13:28:23 8/12/2001 For the past 8-10 years depending on your community, you can actually be arrested for naked baby pictures with blankies. Sad...but true. Before I am flammed - I simply mean those shots all of us have of ourselves and our babies - not those that go beyond the innocence or a little butter-ball hiney on a blanket. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Hi JR.." Posted by Phantom on 13:32:50 8/12/2001 I just meant what is the difference between a boa or a blankey? I really don't think JonBenet could have posed sexually as a baby.? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Phantom" Posted by JR on 14:01:06 8/12/2001 Well I think to some a boa is just typically thought of as part of a costume used by stripper and hookers so there is a negative connotation placed on it. Also, it would depend on how the photo was taken baby on belly VS baby "posed" and a total frontal shot and again communities often determine what is acceptable and what is not. For example, in Cupertino, California (at least in the 80's) you could not buy a Playboy, Playgirl or other like magazine but you could walk across the street (on those that were boundry lines for other cities) and buy one. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "JR" Posted by Phantom on 14:30:22 8/12/2001 I know some people would think of a Boa as stripper gear, but I also would think of it as a prop, as in movies, theatres etc. As what was said above, I also didn't think JonBenet made ANY provocative or sexual moves, so I am a little biased against anymore automatic sayings about a picture having a boa and a baby, naked or otherwise, MUST be pornographic. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "a myth within a myth" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:29:52 8/12/2001 the "myth" is the uncertainty of her wounds. I can't tell you how many autopsies are performed on a daily basis, but for some reason, all those autopsies pretty much define what happened to the body...but NOT JB's. Not according to all the lawyers and pundits and anyone else that may have a stake/agenda in this case. But you know what? I'm going to take the word of Dr Wecht over your words, Diwi. He isn't world reknown and highly respected for nothing. You, on the otherhand, are a mere speck on the cyber highway, just another "beercan collector", and hence, your myth within a myth is useless. It has been left up in the air for nearly five years now, was she or wasn't she molested? Regardless of the black and white autopsy, the TRUTH, the ambivalence continues and seems to benefit the Ramsey's more than anyone. As long as the DA's office, FBI, BPD remain mum on this subject, there's always a way for the R's to look innocent. The molestation aspect is the ONE and ONLY aspect of JB's murder that JR flat-out denies. Why doesn't he deny the other things? Is he OK with the headwound? The strangulation? I think so, he will talk about it all the damned day. But don't even go into that room called SEX. He tried to untie the wristcords saying he "couldn't stand seeing her that way", but it was OK to take a gander at her grotesquely distorted neck?? He interpreted the wristcords as many of us here have...in a sexual connotation, because the knot tier left his signature on the "garrOAT" anyway. The only reason molestation is a question, is because of the RST. Say it loud and say it often, SHE WAS MOLESTED PRIOR TO THAT NIGHT! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Great post, Diwi" Posted by Gemini on 18:20:19 8/12/2001 It points up, beautifully, how much the media (and EP, Dr. Wecht is only an "media expert" who didn't view the body, in this case) influences us ... tho we often do not want to accept that or admit it. It never ceases to amaze me to find that the very first tabloid guesswork to hit the supermarket racks is the theory many still believe. The "selling of the news" has been a big marketing issue for the TV networks and tabloid oriented press for several years now. We all know what sells best to the public - sex and violence. Separate them and they have a marketable product. But, put 'em together and they have a sure thing. I, too, see the vaginal injuries as a, comparatively, minor aspect of the murder. Whether they are the result of staging by a murderous parent or tossed in as misleading "evidence" by a killer who wanted to blur the motive lines, I do not know (tho I suspect the latter). While I realize many of you guys do not see it this way, it's the way things look to me. Hope this generates a good discussion. I'm very interested in comments, pro and con, as long as they have to do with the issues, not personal crap toward the posters. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "My opinion" Posted by JR on 19:51:17 8/12/2001 IMHO, JonBenet was definitely molested prior to the night she was killed. It may not have been going on for long but it's pretty obvious it was going on IMHO. Were the molestation and the sexual prancing for pageants connected? IMHO, highly unlikely except that the prancing could factor into the molest. OTH, I don't believe the molest brought about the sexual prancing. Phantom - remember I said pornography is generally determined by your community. I can't comment on the picture of JonBenet one way or the other because I have never seen the picture. It could be pornographic or it could simply be a cute baby picture which happens to have a boa as part of it. Was it posed or did JonBenet find mommie's boa right after a bath and someone had a camera handy? I don't think we know those answers. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "JR" Posted by Phantom on 21:36:28 8/12/2001 > Were the molestation and the >sexual prancing for pageants connected? >IMHO, highly unlikely except that the >prancing could factor into the molest. Sorry JR, what was the sexual prancing? I have no idea what you mean. > OTH, I don't believe the >molest brought about the sexual prancing. I would have thought that if there was molesting at some time, that the sexual prancing would then come about. Because before being molested, JonBenet wouldn't know anything about this sexual prancing. (I just remember being about 6 years old,and you only learn things from others.) I haven't seen the picture either. Has anybody? Who? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Phantom" Posted by JR on 21:41:05 8/12/2001 Since you admittedly "don't think JonBenet made ANY provocative or sexual moves," I have no way to respond to your post. IMHO, many of her moves in the video's I have seen were very "suggestive." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "sexual prancing" Posted by fly on 10:11:43 8/13/2001 JR - Do you think most of the girls in pageants have been sexually molested? Afterall, many here see the same sexual prancing there as they see in JBR. You can teach "sexual prancing" without molesting. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "myth vs. fact" Posted by Greenleaf on 11:21:29 8/13/2001 Diwi, I read your "myth dissertation" with great interest. It is, by far, the most well written pro-Ram discussion I have read, thus far, on any forum. However, it is based on a false premise. FACT #1: A dead child was found in the Rams basement FACT #2: There was no credible evidence of an intruder FACT #3: There was evidence of sexual abuse FACT #4: The Rams made little or no effort to cooperate with the police FACT #5: The Rams have changed their stories FACT #6: The Rams are on record, accusing a variety of people, including such innocents as the McRenolds FACT #7: They paid to have their own lie detector test, and had to retake it several times, before making a passing grade FACT #8: They had the D.A. in their hip pocket (IMHO) FACT #9: JonBenet was not just "playing grown up," she was TARTED UP. FACT #10: The Rams have given thumbs up to the most despicable forum Queen on the internet; apparently encouraging her vicious rumors, name calling, and blatant lies. They obviously contribute to her a frenzy feeding of convoluted theories, in the hopes that something sticks. "Myth: a usu. legendary narrative that presents part of the beliefs of a people or explains a practice, belief or natural phenomenon. 2.)"A person or thing having only an imaginary existence." "Fact: A thing done." THEY KILLED THEIR CHILD IMHO So, Diwi, you may wax eloquent, but facts rise above conjecture. Most of the posters here are not "dense." They know fact from fiction. JonBenet Ramsey was murdered in her own home. Her parents were the only adults there. That is fact. Rumpelstiltzkin, Cinderella, Goldilocks, Aladdin and the Magic Lamp, and Little Red Riding Hood are all Myths. Although there are many excellent responses on this thread, I especially liked Edie Pratt's post. Greenleaf p.s. All my personal opinion, of course. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Now JR...." Posted by Phantom on 11:45:06 8/13/2001 You can tell me which videos of JonBenet doing what look like sexual prancing. Really, I don't know what sexual prancing is, I'd like to hear what someone thinks it is and looks like. It couldn't be the cowboy video, because jonbenet wasn't prancing around, was she? I've seen on tv about pagents, and they were "suggestive", and crass and in very poor taste. Only done to be noticed. I've never seen anything like that on one of JonBenet's videos. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Answers to your questions" Posted by JR on 13:49:52 8/13/2001 Do I think most of the girls in pageants have been sexually molested? NO. IMHO, the percentage of girls in pageants who have been sexually molested is probably not significantly different than any other "grouping" of girls. Phantom - if you don't see it then I doubt trying to describe it is going to make any difference. No, I was not refering to the "Cowboy Sweetheart" video and I believe you already knew that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "JR" Posted by fly on 14:11:27 8/13/2001 JR - Sorry, Phantom was actually the one that implied JBR's sexual prancing was related to being molested. Phantom reposted part of your post, and ran his/her reply into that, and I didn't catch the shift in poster. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "No actually..." Posted by Phantom on 15:37:59 8/13/2001 I've pretty much forgotten everything particular that everyone has posted, .........just trying to get back into it. BTW, I tried to prance around, sexually, I don't know or totally forgot wth how to do it! :_) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Phantom" Posted by JR on 17:45:17 8/13/2001 Perhaps "prance" was a poor choice of words. The "moves" JonBenet made in some of her videos were IMHO, very sexually suggestive. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Now I..." Posted by Phantom on 18:09:40 8/13/2001 got'cha. I understand now that you think her moves were sexual. Some people think that, but I just can't see them that way..... I've seen children just out in public, who "moved" much more sexually suggestive, and hoped I wasn't just seeing it like that all myself, but I'm sure I wasn't. I don't think it was really their moves, but they seemed very senual and/or sexual. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "We Get Your Point" Posted by Chatter on 18:05:20 8/13/2001 Prance is probably about as good a word as any. I don't know if most little girls could do it like she did that young. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Greenleaf" Posted by A.K. on 23:38:14 8/13/2001 Your list reads better than the Ten Commandments. Excellent analysis. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Response" Posted by Diwi on 07:20:17 8/14/2001 Thanks for all of your comments, whether I disagree or not. But... Now it's a problem of getting facts mixed up with opinions/beliefs. The very essence of how "myths" get started actually. For now, just a few comments on GL's "10 commandments" (LOL)... "Number 1" IS a fact, a good start, but then it's all downhill. "Number 2" is not. Number 2 is a matter of interpretation, perspective, opinion, and conclusion based upon belief, NOT a "fact." Number 3 is a semi-fact. There was some form of sexual abuse the night of the crime (though I believe minimal and not the primary motivation and/or behavior of the perp). Whether there was any PRIOR to the night of the crime is not a "fact," but again a matter of opinion. Number 4 is in NO WAY a "fact." It is an opinion. I think the Rams have done more than enough to cooperate with the police. I wouldn't call THAT a fact either however. That's my opinion. Number 5 is too general a statement to be considered a fact. Some of it may be true, but from what I've seen, even if so, it is not incriminating, just common discrepancies of human beings who were severely traumatized (guilty or not) and whose every word has been examined under a microscope ever since. No glaring contradictions in the Ramsey's basic story has been forthcoming in my view. It's nit-picking at the most. Number 6 is also a semi-fact, as we don't really know who is guilty, so we don't really know who is innocent either. After all the blame cast the Ramseys way, I give them a little leeway in casting that in other directions. Number 7 is also a very general statement, with a negative implied. No detailed results of their tests have been released as far as I know, so it's hard to judge this aspect. I do not however, blame the Rams for not giving in to tests run by the BPD or FBI. I don't trust either organization as far as I can throw them, and the Ramseys shouldn't either. Number 8 is not only not a "fact," but Greenleaf seems to know this, adding (IMHO) after it. Number 9 is certainly a matter of opinion. Whether one looked at the pageants and/or Jon Benet's performances in them in any way as "sexual," is in the eye of the beholder. The media surely did. So did the authorities, and the general public. But I didn't, still don't. I think it's silly. That was the whole point of my article above. None of that was "sexual," and it having been painted that way from the very beginning, is where I think most people have gone wrong in their analysis of the case. Finally, Number 10 really has nothing to do with the case but is in itself only yet another "beyond" factor which has been formed afterwards. As far as I know, Jameson has occasional contact with the Rams, but neither side tells the other what to do or say. Beyond the rhetoric however, I agree in a way that Jams does more harm to the Ramsey "cause" than good. If that is truly the case however, and one believes the Ramseys are guilty already, you should all be applauding Jams, not putting her (or her forum) down, no? And, by the way, I do not consider myself a "pro-Ramsey." I am not an anti-Ramsey either. All I want is the truth and the facts. It is a slippery slope however, knowing the difference between those, and myths culled from opinions/beliefs, elevated unwittingly to something else over time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Diwi ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. ":-)" Posted by Geno on 20:03:38 8/15/2001 dangit, diwi...keep posting here and mebbe you'll entice Desaix to return. interesting, thought provoking posts [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Geno ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Greenleaf," Posted by pinker on 07:20:11 8/14/2001 You've fallen into the trap Diwi proposes was set when you claim #3 to be a fact. Strictly from a medical point of view the only definitive proof of any sexual molestation includes the recovery of sperm or fluid on the victim's body from another individual, positive testing for a sexually transmitted disease and or pregnancy, and lastly and given the most weight in instances of sexually abused children is the verbal affirmation through therapeutic interviews of these small innocent victims. None of those are present in this case, not a single one. But Greenie, I do agree with absolutey everything else you related. :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Diwi" Posted by JR on 09:55:15 8/14/2001 IMHO, Greenleaf's facts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9 are pretty basic facts. Fact #3 appears to be fairly accurate based on the autopsy report and the analysis of it by most experts. Fact #7 has allegedly been confirmed in the Ramsey's own words but then again, we only have media presentation of those words so... Fact 8 - is it a fact or was (is) the DA's office as afraid of prosecuting any case as it appears they are? Don't know if Fact 10 is a fact or if hirself takes it upon hirself to present Ramsey opinion and approval as fact. Hir certainly likes to play head games - reference Aurora's exclusive JW picture thread and hirself's response to the request to take the pictures/link down from hir sight. What arrogance! OK, back to fact 6. GL wrote: The Rams are on record, accusing a variety of people, including such innocents as the McRenolds and you responded with Number 6 is also a semi-fact, as we don't really know who is guilty, so we don't really know who is innocent either. It's mox nix is it not? The Ramseys have in fact thrown a number of people under the bus and certainly not all of those people are guilty so even if one or even two are, the rest of them are assuredly innocent are they not? Again. reference Aurora's picture threads. I posted last night that hirself 's forum has a post form "B" stating it was Melinda and not Patsy who turned around and alleges this is from Patsy's own mouth. Now, I really think Aurora is able to tell a 20 something from a 40 something woman as are most if not all of us. If Patsy really did say this, then she has now thrown Melinda under their bus IMHO. The fact that it was addressed at all on hirself's forum tells me Aurora was honest when she stated she used the "M" word. The fact that in addressing this statement it was acknowledged that someone turned around confirms the fact that someone turned around so unless Aurora is in desperate need of glasses, IMHO, we can say Patsy has now thrown Melinda under the bus. I don't know who killed JonBenet but IMHO, the Ramsey behavior and attitude since 26 December 1996 tells me if they weren't involved, they know who was. I have tried very hard to stay on the fence (and yes, Gem my backside is weighed down with Charmin) but as time passes it becomes harder and harder to do. When you analyze the information which is assumed to be what is preventing an arrest of the Ramsey's, it does not look good. Let's take the "foreign" DNA for example. All of us have foreign DNA on our persons (probably a good 99% of the time) and most likely in several places even if we have just bathed IMHO "IF" anyone else uses or cleans our tub or shower. We pick it up all day long unless we are total recluses. JonBenet was sitting on the floor at the White's party allegedly. Between the party goers and anyone else who had been in that house recently it is not surprising that she had "foreign" DNA under her nails and IMHO even on her panties after all, she was wearing a dress so one can probably safely assume her panties were in direct contact with the carpeting. Any adult or child at that party could have helped JonBenet wipe herself that night which might also explain the "foreign" DNA - supposition yes, but we have been told JonBenet needed help with this bodily function. The coroner's clippers also can easily explain the DNA. Have you left your house today? Did you drive your car? Have you been inside any other building? You have foreign DNA on you without a doubt, if so. Now, look at the duct tape. Who's fibers were on it? Who's DNA was on it? Who's fingerprints were on it? Why were the lip prints on it a perfect set? Why was there no tape residue on JonBenet's face? The intruder theory does not hold water if we have to assume that intruder came through the basement window Smit say s/he did. There was no fiber, DNA or other evidence of an intruder on that window. There was one leaf in the basement yet there was a lot of debris outside that window including a lot of leaves. There was what one packing peanut? This was Christmas time. I find it hard to believe that basement didn't have packing peanuts in multiple places. The supposedly missing items (duct tape roll, remaining cord, mid portion of the paintbrush handle and so forth) can easily be explained away. No one searched the Ramsey's persons before they left the house that day. Didn't search Patsy's purse either did they? Had there been a fire in the fireplace recently? We don't know. Have those ashes been analyzed if so? That Maglight (and it's batteries) was wiped clean for a very good reason IMHO. Until and unless the Ramsey's sit down and answer every question posed to them by the BPD and there answers are all verified, IMHO, they can not be excluded from the umbrella and deserve to be there. The fact that they refuse to do this is what makes these fence posts so dang sharp. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "JR" Posted by Diwi on 11:00:33 8/14/2001 Thanks for your comments. A lot to wade through so I will just make a few general replies. Greenleaf calling things "facts" when in reality, they are not, is part of the whole problem here. You say they are "pretty basic facts." Well, not really. They are well-accepted beliefs by a lot, but not facts. There's a BIG difference. Virtually every "fact" GL mentioned is not a real "fact" but simply an interpretation/perspective. Everyone's entitled. And I'm not saying that my disagreement with several of these aspects of the case are "facts" either. They are simply matters of differing opinions. Some opinions/beliefs can carry more weight than others, but to generalize some things as much as I see done in JW AND Jams place, and then label them "facts" is illogical. One can "call" them anything they wish to, but "facts" is simply incorrect. There is one main reason I think the Ramseys have not been indicted and put on trial, and that is because there is not enough evidence (facts) which a DA feels is sufficient for winning a case. In other words, regardless of how strong some want to believe the Ramseys are guilty, there is and has been, reasonable doubt. I'm not going to get into bad-mouthing Jams here, nor do I do that about anyone in JW over there. I am not a pro-Ram, nor an anti-Ram. I am, if you will excuse the metaphor, an "agnostic-Ram." From what I've seen so far, there is no compelling or reasonable argument either way. I have many, many problems with the Ramseys, and with a lot of their supporters. I do not "like" John and Patsy, and find them in many ways, quite obnoxious. I also disagree with a lot of their religious and seeming political/sociological views. I would not want to sit down to dinner with them. I think a lot, even most of their problems so far with the general public has been their own fault. If I were to advise them, I would have them take an entirely different route (no silly suits, lots of public exposure-internet, chat, college campus lecture tours, etc.) than the one they've been on. But... None of that makes them guilty of this crime. And I have tried as hard as possible to keep my own personal likes/dislikes out of the equation. The bottom line for me, as one who thinks they are innocent, is motive, motive, motive. I have yet to hear ONE reasonable theory on this. Now, you or others may present such and call it reasonable and expect me to agree, but that's what this whole thing is about, whether something is a "fact" or whether it is something else, an opinion/belief. The sincerity and/or emotional appeal which a lot give to their thoughts, doesn't really matter much to me. I appreciate civility and all of that, but simply because someone believes something strongly does not mean what they believe is true. A lot on both sides of the "fence" it seems to me, have ALREADY accepted certain arguments and very specific assumptions in their reasoning, and to me, a lot of these are mythical without much (if any) foundation in the reality of the case. There is a tendency, on both sides, to wish the other who is disagreeing on something, to STIPULATE to things as "facts," when in fact, they are not that at all. I won't go through your whole post, but you make my case for this methodology when you say the intruder theory does not hold water if we have to assume entrance through the basement window. Within the context of that, you are probably right. But only within the context you assign it, which is...an assumption. It seems to me that an intruder could've entered and exited in a number of different ways and locations. They might've even had a key. I'm not saying this is true, only that it is an error in thinking to me to base a logical argument on forcing the opposing side to "stipulate" to "assumptions." I have very much tried to look at all the (hard) facts without making assumptions, about anything. It's a very hard thing to do, but I do so in my thinking and analysis of everything nowadays, and this case is no exception. It's just second nature to me now. I disagree with you saying until the Rams sit down and "answer every question" the "authorities" want to throw at them, they will always remain under some umbrella of suspicion. I'm not really sure I trust the "authorities" in this case to begin with. Everyone within seems to have an ulterior agenda, and it all seems to be profit or money related, not justice for Jon Benet related. Those who preach the loudest that this is not true, are actually the most suspicious to me. I think for the most part, the Rams have bent over backwards to cooperate with the authorities, and at this point, they don't owe those screwups anything else. To think cops and DA offices (which are ALL very political) do not have an "agenda" is also a big part of the problem here. The "authorities" are not above any of this nonsense, and for a lot of anti-Rams, I don't think ANYTHING the Rams do at this point, short of being strapped into torture devices under hot lights, would mean a thing. I don't even think that would "prove" anything to die-hard Ramsey haters. Just as it goes for their opposites, the die-hard Ramsey supporters who in many cases seem to have elevated these folks to sainthood. On the other hand, I agree with you that they most certainly SHOULD still be seen as suspects, and should not EXPECT not to be. The bottom line is that I think for the anti-Rams, NOTHING they can say or do will EVER be enough, and that they will always be seen as guilty. And for the pro-Rams, nothing they can say or do will EVER be seen in a bad light or criticized sharply, as I have done, and which just made me quit as a member of Jam's registered forum. Somewhere in the middle of all of this, JR, is the real truth. The only way we get there is by knowing what differentiates a true "fact" from an opinion/belief. When we can't do this, is when myths are formed, and yes, this has happened on both the anti-Ram AND pro-Ram sides. As I said earlier, myths, once developed and nurtured, are very hard to dispel. I think there are plenty in this case. Most are based upon assumptions which the individual or group for some reason wants an opposing viewpoint to stipulate to as "fact," when no such conditions exist to label it with such a definition. To say "a child was murdered that night" is a true fact. To say however, "there was no other adult in the home that night except John and Patsy," is an opinion/belief. The latter can be BASED on interpretation of facts, but they are NOT "facts." A lot of what is said in both camps, is very much like this to me. But please do not mistake my "Myth" article above as somehow "pro-Ramsey." It was/is not. I am not. I am and always will be on the fence until there is a fair trial and someone is convicted, based upon the facts, nothing else. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Diwi ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Diwi" Posted by JR on 11:58:55 8/14/2001 GL did end her post with a statement that this was her opinion so even though she called the list "facts" she did clarify IMHO. As for some of those items, they have been "confirmed" in some of the books written. Others, such as the Ramsey's changing their statements are obvious if you watch the interviews they participate in and read DOI. Sorry, I do not accept nor believe the Ramsey's have done anything much less everything in their power to cooperate. We will have to agree to disagree on that issue. You said, I'm not really sure I trust the "authorities" in this case to begin with. Everyone within seems to have an ulterior agenda, and it all seems to be profit or money related, not justice for JonBenet related. IMHO, some do others don't but it's often times difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. In my 50+ years one thing I have learned is that very nearly everything is "political" and everyone has their own agenda though some are able to set theirs aside for the good of the whole, at least at times. It sucks but it's true. IMHO, Steve Thomas didn't write his book for profit. I believe he knew the Ramseys would sue him and even if not they were not successful, that he would most likely lose any "profit" in fighting them. I believe Steve to be an honest and honorable man who wrote his book to expose much of what you are arguing here. I believe his interpretation of the evidence led him down a path that said, Patsy killed her daughter. Did he make a mistake? I don't know because I am sure that I don't have all the facts that he based his opinion on. I don't necessarily believe his theory as a whole is accurate (for reasons I state in my last paragraph) but I think he believes it is and he has evidentiary "facts" unknown to us to base it on. As for your statement about Pro or Anti-Rams changing their opinions, you are most likely right though I believe there are still some people who given enough evidence will be swayed. My "gut instinct" in this case told me one of the Ramsey's is guilty. I have tried very hard to stay on the fence as I said even though it's difficult to ignore gut instinct (mine has almost always been trust worthy.) The Ramsey's themselves and not the media nor the books, with the exception of their own, have been the one thing that has pushed me closer and closer to falling off the fence. You also wrote: To say "a child was murdered that night" is a true fact. To say however, "there was no other adult in the home that night except John and Patsy," is an opinion/belief. The latter can be BASED on interpretation of facts, but they are NOT "facts." IMHO, that is true of every case unless you were actually there. Jurors have not been at the crime and hence, they must base their vote on an interpretation of presumed facts. Isn't that what GL is doing here? Even if someone confesses to this crime, IMHO, we will never know the "real" facts, only their interpretation of what they did that night. I have always been told (and believe) there are 3 sides to every story, yours, mine and the truth. Does that mean if we are both in one place at one time that one of us is a liar? Not necessarily. It means we see and interpret things differently because we are seeing them from a slightly different vantage point even if we can preclude prejudices and so on. So Diwi, can we at least agree that we both (as well as anyone else following this case for all these years) want JFJBR? Sorry for yet another long winded post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Diwi, JR" Posted by Ayeka on 12:47:28 8/14/2001 Diwi, thanks for the insightful post. I may not always agree with what you say but you do say it well, and I respect that. JR, excellent post as well. This is a pretty interesting thread to read all around. Thanks all. Ayeka [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "JR" Posted by Diwi on 13:50:18 8/14/2001 Thanks for another good post. I would like to think everyone who has an interest in the case has JFJBR as their primary agenda, but in my nearly 2 years hanging around these forums, I'm not so sure anymore. In fact, I have been lately working on an idea/thesis similar to above which might actually cause quite a stir in both camps, should I ever finish it and post it, somewhere. Sadly, I think for a lot in these forums, JFJBR has in some ways, taken a back seat to a lot of other concerns and agendas. I think both sides would scream their heads off at even the suggestion, but it may indeed be a hidden truth here and clearly seems an unfortunate undercurrent to these places. Not that it started out that way consciously for most. I'm sure intentions, pro or anti-Ram have for the most part, been sincere. But there is TOO much to me, on both sides, which indicate that something else has been born here, with this odd, unsolved case for so long, and that is a lot of things which have little to do with the murder or in bringing justice to the perp(s). Again, I think a lot of this has to do with the media, with the authorities, and with the general dynamics and psychology of internet discussion groups in general. I will say this for now. I think the Ramsey's behavior towards the PUBLIC (not towards the media and/or authorities) is one of the main reasons why so many people think they are guilty. In many ways, I think they've caused a lot of the hate and suspicion cast their way, but perhaps not in the manner one might think is obvious. I really don't think I can blame them for their seeming to not cooperate as fully as some of you might want with the authorities, when those same people seemed to have screwed up things royally from the beginning, and also pegged them as the prime suspects for years even with no case being brought yet. It has become obvious to me that they should FORGET the authorities, forget the legal system (with the silly suits, especially the ones in Burke's name which in a way I feel was/is "child abuse"), and forget the mainstream/tabloid media. If they want to NOT be under that umbrella, they should go as directly to the PEOPLE as possible. In Jams's forum, one of my many battles was suggesting just this. For the longest time, they have acted as a lot of other "above the law" rich folks have, and yet, most of us are just common and have never been anywhere near the sociopolitical situation they have. That is the problem. It has created this angered resentment against them, and most of it in my opinion, is their own fault. The issue for me is, there are many, many avenues by which they can "state their case" to the common folks, and they have not been doing that. I am not critical of their dealings with the cops or "authorities" because I think by now it's pretty clear those people have never really had their best interests in mind. As you say, virtually eveything is political, and that's what has also happened here. But the Ramsey's biggest problem may just be that they are NOT "common people," and so filing $80 million dollar lawsuits and then throwing settlement money into some wacky Burke trust funds (poor kid), all seems to put the girl and justice second. The various personalities and little groups on the forums have joined right on in, and seem also to forget what this is all about. I'm not sure where this is all going, if anywhere, but I find a lot of this in very bad taste, which is why I try to stay above (or away) from it. I would love however to sit down with the Ramseys for awhile and tell them the facts of life. I think they were living in a dream world for a long time, and if they don't wise up, their nightmare has only just begun. True JFJBR however, will not come about in hate or in these petty, gossipy type of personality/forum battles. All of that is so much fluff to me. It's almost like it's become a "hobby" to most, something interesting and an activity, not with its primary purpose being justice, but something else, something much darker than any of us can clearly see. I hope this is not the case, but as time goes by, this may be the final ironic truth of it all, and John and Patsy, who should be on the frontlines of JFJBR, are only being diverted to their own agenda as many in these forums seem to me to have been. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Diwi ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Diwi" Posted by JR on 13:56:22 8/14/2001 Your perception of agenda's might be the result of people coming to the forums every day hoping the crime has been solved and it hasn't. Not only that, but there has been so little new information for so long that speculation is bound to run rampant. Think about it, the only news we seem to get these days is about law suits. When enough are filed and mediaized (my word) people tend to not take those filing them seriously IMHO. There are actually people who live off law suits. That is something I would love to see changed. In Calif. you can only file so many in a ten year period unless the law has changed recently. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Diwi" Posted by Gemini on 13:59:29 8/15/2001 I don't see it either. Sometimes I think it's more than just media slant. I suspect there are 2 or 3 generations who were conditioned to be wary of everything that might, possibly, smack of anything to do with SEX. No insult intended, guys ... I just think there has to be some kind of pre-mindset to see anything sexual in a bunch of little girls dancing around. Orrrrr ... the media put the notion there to sell, sell, sell. jmo, of course [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "orrrrrrrr," Posted by Edie Pratt on 17:46:02 8/15/2001 after seeing one pedophile after another come crawling out of the woodwork, be it at church, school, skating rink, etc., we "dirty minded" people are hypersensitive about children acting older than their years. A six year old was MURDERED, and there has to be a REASON that there are traces of an object in her vagina, and the remarkable size of her hyman, and no bike ride did THAT. Now, couple that with the comehither look on her face while prancing in her Vegas Showgirl bathing suit, and VOILA, you got more SEX. There's dancing and there's dancing, and the kind she was doing involved alot of fanny wiggling. Do you shake yours like that on the dancefloor? Gees, the media made up the sex angle out of whole cloth. All six year olds are found dead with blood in their undies and a closet full of boas. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Eddie" Posted by JR on 17:54:24 8/15/2001 LOL! I shake mine like that after a glass of Moet or 6. Guess I am just a dirty minded pervert here. My child would have been quietly chatted with had she displayed some of those behaviors. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "uh, yeah" Posted by Edie Pratt on 18:01:10 8/15/2001 when I was little, back in the 60's, I watched MMonroe walk in a movie like her hips were dislocated, and I started to do the same...for about a half a minute before my mother said, "what's the matter? Do you have to go to the bathroom?" and from there on in, I was given a "pixie" haircut until high school...I looked like a fat boy:-) Anyway, I am old fashioned, and think it's entirely inappropriate to tell a six yr old she looks like a "sexy witch" at Halloween, etc etc etc. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Edie" Posted by Gemini on 18:25:41 8/15/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:25:41, 8/15/2001 That sexy witch thing bothered me too ... at first ... until I was buying my daughter a halloween costume (a clown : ) ) sometime after the discussion and saw a witch costume that actually had "Sexy Witch" on the package. Was there anything inappropriate about this costume? Hmmm ... one was on display, so I took a look, and ... there wasn't that I could tell. Might have been made for a child that associated "witch" with Samantha instead of a warty nose : ) . It looked like it was a slimmer, more flattering cut than the usual, boxy witch costume. My guess is JB got the "sexy witch" description from the rack at K-mart. You guys have to go with what you believe, but I think you're making a big deal out of the proverbial molehill. Yes, this little girl was murdered, but hundreds of thousands of girls who were not are involved in modeling, theatrics, dancing, etc.. Also Edie, from what I understand, pedophiles are attracted to kids who look like little kids ... not the showboaters. This is going to be my last comment on this subject. It seems suspiciously like a tinderbox, and I don't have time to get into squabbles. Just stating my own opinion as a mom who has reared two daughters with high standards. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Gem" Posted by JR on 18:51:04 8/15/2001 I am not saying that pageants (et all) per say are wrong or even bad. They can really add a lot of confidence especially to a shy child. IMHO, what was done to JonBenet to prepare her for her pageants was wrong and was "sexual" if that is how people want to term it. Not just her moves, but the manner in which she was dressed and made up - take the picture as a whole and IMHO, it was all done purposfully, not something JonBenet did because she was precocious (sp). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Geno" Posted by DebDeb on 11:18:02 8/16/2001 I would LOVE to see Desaix back posting. One of my all time favorite posters! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "yes, Debdeb" Posted by Gemini on 18:34:11 8/16/2001 Me too. If we had Diwi and desaix both posting ... FrankG and Shadow, as well ... along with all the others here, I'd sign in when I have nothing to say ... just for the pleasure of reading the threads. Geno, it's really good to see your virtual face : ). You're another who's been missed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE